">We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are.
what did he mean by this
>>8189299
We see things the way we want to see them. Pretty basic man.
>>8189299
dream symbolism and shit
innernet says bertrand didn't say it. but i assume it means that our perception of things depend entirely on our own sensation of them.
>>8189299
Fuck you
>>8189315
That's the second most vacuous statement I've ever read.
>>8189299
We see things as our senses perceive them, not as they actually are.
The blind man/deaf man/etc have a fundamentally different perception of the world. Ergo we only ever have an 'impression' of things.
>>8189687
It's a kind of solipsism really. The phenomenal is just that, a sense experience composed entirely inside your head. It's depiction is as dependent on your own mind as it is on the object itself - which the quote is implying might not need exist, or is distorted unrecognisably by the subjective.
If you want to take the idea further, you should look at the western philosophical split between empricism and rationalists, stretching way back from Plato and the idea of universals being immaterialy created and infinite (think of it as existing in a separate mathematical dimension, really, which paves the way for a lot of later interesting european algebra and metaphysics like Liebniz's monad theory) and the counter-theory that events need to be experienced in order to have reality, which takes the extreme approach that it is either inside your own head (solipsism) or the construct of a group vision or universal perciever, like Avicenna or Berkley theorised. The dynamic is very interesting, but married best by Kant, I think, with transcendental idealism fusing the two concepts as (and I say this with admittedly little knowledge) into a behemoth hybrid theory that allows for a priori facts to exist separately in an a-spacial and a-temporal zone (think of it as just an eternal cube of information) that is filtered through our conscious, subjective lens. In that sense, we see things only really as "we are" but still are able to apply consistent logical laws to them as we're also approximating the shades of what "they are", and understand how they continue to be so, seemingly, consistent - which solipsism is unable to do without an effective deity.
Sounds basic, but it took us several hundred years to figure out.
Literally Kant's model of reality/perception
